CARANGMAN SEDUCTION SCANDAL.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXXI, Issue 71, 12 October 1920, Page 6

CARANGMAN SEDUCTION SCANDAL.

'■; , ; ■ ; 'Ay ; rv. •• . Per Press Association. ' Wellington, October 11.. The case? the name* of Dr. Mackenzie and Dr. Claridg© Struct 6ff. the .Medical Register was continued before the Full Court.,• Mr Skorrstt, submitted that the only tray the opinion of : the Medical Board could be expressed was by resolution, and as no expression had been given as., to grave or infamous conduct, the Court had no jurisdiction. • A motion was passed asking that the matter • be to the Attorney-General for permission .to take the matter before the: Supreme Court, but no specific charges were made. * r The: Court would not express* any opinion l at the moment; but Mr Sker- ■ rett’s objection was noted. Formal evidence was given by Charles Drake as to. the procedure of the Now Zealand. Medical Board. Dr.,, Mac gill, member of the Medical. Board, considered that Dr. Claridgo and Dr. Mackenzie were guilty ofbthe charges against them, 1 and therefore-referred the matter to the Attorney-General. Dr; Claridge, in evidence, said he qualified at Durham University and had been practicing since 1917. He was employed by the United Friendly Society in : February 1919 at his residence, Tinakofi..Bead. He was afcked by Strongman to get his daughter out of trouble and witness refused. He received a , second offer from Strongman a. few days later and again refused. He was requested a third time to procure abortion on the night of the ’abduction. Dr. Mackenzie called at witness’ house for a social visit and Nattrass called later. This was the first time witness had : seen Nattrass. The pbsi- ’* tion was discussed. Witness- was informed that the girl Strongman had asked Dr. Mackenzie to save her A from the operation which her parents wished her to undergo for abortion. He went witli Dr. Mackenzie and Nattrass to the hospital. While . Dr. Mackenzie took the night muse into the kitchen for tea, witness told the girl that Nattrass was" waiting outside for her iii a motor. She followed him outside, and they drove cc * wi^^T^eßßes , house; where she was supplied with clothes. In answer to Sir Macassy, witro-.s said he told Chief Detective Bodci.im he had been asked to perform m operation for abortion.

r When Mrs Strangman was uru'er cross-examination in the case, Mr Skerrebt asked: How much'money did ybU jgefcfrom NattrassP—l didn’t get- anything. I was not the plaintiff. « • : Well, hdw- much did your husband get?—l don’t know; about. £370, after expenses had been paid. Are you sure?, lam told- the - : ; ftnhnmt was about £66o?—Ohj no, it ♦

was not that much. We got it for the. girl. Where is the , money?—We are Iceepjng it for our daughter. It is in the savings bank, , -At 'this,.stag© began to cry, and she told Mr" Skerrett thqt he had no right to ask her questions about money. . They had got the money from Nattrass because (it was the only way to punish him. Counsel informed the court that he Would not press the point then; ho would get the information litter.